Sarcozy is a reactionary. He lost. I didn't say things are perfect. But, you know, the abbot or the boyar won't be selling "gypsy slaves in fne condition" now either. They lost their crafts, btw, because of the mechanization/industrialization. Like everywhere where capitalist relations of production take root.

I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.

Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.

Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better. I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal. That silence is deafening.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.

Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.

Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better. I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal. That silence is deafening.

Sarcozy is a reactionary. He lost. I didn't say things are perfect. But, you know, the abbot or the boyar won't be selling "gypsy slaves in fne condition" now either. They lost their crafts, btw, because of the mechanization/industrialization. Like everywhere where capitalist relations of production take root.

They were supposed to be integrated into the peasantry. The emancipation had a lot to do with the program of centralization and statism as the government's policy (cf. the confiscation of monastery lands). That much I do know.

Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.

Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.

Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better. I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal. That silence is deafening.

Red herrings much?

is that what is in your ears?

Myself, I can't stand herring, red or otherwise. Not much of a fish person.

So, pray tell: you can't interpret the events and institutions of the state and century you were born in right, how do you claim to get it right over a century before your birth, in the predecessors to your country? After all, the Danube-Black Sea Canal was built by "enlightened" slave labor (while the Erie Canal was built by workers well paid by capitalism)-how did they differ from Tigani slaves?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I didn't mean you personally, unless you plan to join the gay parade on Patriarchate Hill in Bucharest next month.

Not really. But I've always watched the one here. Passes literally by my house. Always had a great time.

I can picture you with a multicoloured whig, dressed as a kadına, belly-dancing on top of some chariot and having the time of your life - all 'grown up'!

kadina-is that a word?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Romanian slavery was also more like Islamic (and classic Roman) slavery than that of the "enlightenment" in that one born a slave could become head of state, as Ştefan Răzvan showed.

Like everyone on the South side can become president or a CEO if they only wanted. Yes sir.Hope orthonorm will bother to break down for you this judgement fallacy.

he might be working on wrapping his cryptic post into an enigma even as we post.

Hopefully he might point out the fallacy you committed in your post.

But most like he will confirm you in your folly.

Btw, I guess you haven't heard. Someone on the South Side has become president.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.

Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.

Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better. I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal. That silence is deafening.

Red herrings much?

is that what is in your ears?

Myself, I can't stand herring, red or otherwise. Not much of a fish person.

So, pray tell: you can't interpret the events and institutions of the state and century you were born in right, how do you claim to get it right over a century before your birth, in the predecessors to your country? After all, the Danube-Black Sea Canal was built by "enlightened" slave labor (while the Erie Canal was built by workers well paid by capitalism)-how did they differ from Tigani slaves?

You know, I can take a critical look at Romanian communism. The problem is that all over Eastern Europe communist had to do, or at least did, the job that capitalists did in the west: industrialization, transformation of peasants into factory workers etc. According to Marx that's not how things work. Communism will pick up after capitalism has thoroughly done their job.

I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman"). I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word. The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman"). I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word. The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."

It's mostly a literary term, not used in real life. Transylvania wouldn't know it for sure.

I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman"). I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word. The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."

I don't know any Turkish, so I just spelled the word as I thought it might look like in the original without consulting a dictionary.

It doesn't necessarily have a pejorative connotation in Romanian - many of our young girls would have ended up in this condition through no fault of their own in the past. Alas, they still do!

I can't say anything specific as to the Romanian Lands and the Gypsy slaves, but in general those countries honoring the Euchologion saw slaves as persons under the law rather than chattel, as they were under "enlightened" law codes, e.g. slaves could contract marriages which masters could not break up, a right no "enlightened" state recognized.

Yeah, you don't know much about it that's why it's better to stay silent of things you don't know. In Romanian Gypsy emancipation was a direct consequence of the dissemination among what became the "intelligentsia" (most of boyar extraction, a few clergy) of the ideas of the Encyclopaedists, French Revolution, and, more immediately of the 1848 revolution.

Unfortunately, I know better than to trust your word on it, and better to point that out to those who don't know better. I don't need to keep silent on that, seeing as you still haven't explained to us the merits of the enlightened plan to dig the Danube-Black Sea Canal, over the medieval horrors of the construction of the Erie Canal. That silence is deafening.

Red herrings much?

is that what is in your ears?

Myself, I can't stand herring, red or otherwise. Not much of a fish person.

So, pray tell: you can't interpret the events and institutions of the state and century you were born in right, how do you claim to get it right over a century before your birth, in the predecessors to your country? After all, the Danube-Black Sea Canal was built by "enlightened" slave labor (while the Erie Canal was built by workers well paid by capitalism)-how did they differ from Tigani slaves?

You know, I can take a critical look at Romanian communism. The problem is that all over Eastern Europe communist had to do, or at least did, the job that capitalists did in the west: industrialization, transformation of peasants into factory workers etc. According to Marx that's not how things work. Communism will pick up after capitalism has thoroughly done their job.

LOL. You just pointed out that Marx didn't know what he was talking about.

Capitalism did its job thoroughly in Germany. It is now being run by (according to reports) by the second most powerful person in the world, Angelika Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany. She seems to have found it an "enlightening" experience.

As for the prospects of communism picking up, that might veer into politics.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I know the Turkish (btw, in Turkish it's kadın-kadına would be inflected for the dative, meaning "to/for woman"). I just happened to have just taken down my Levitchi an hour before-it spells it cadînă (so I'm guessing it is "cadână," although the older spelling is more etymologically correct), and gives "odalisque" as the definition (I had figured that it would have such a meaning-Turkish words in in Romanian rarely have a complimentary meaning attached to them)-I checked once you confirmed it was a word. The "Mic Dictionar Enciclopedic", which I forgot was sitting behind my computer, defines it is "sclava dintr-un harem" "slave in a harem," but I have a feeling that it has a different meaning that you are referring to, as to "a certain kind of woman."

I don't know any Turkish, so I just spelled the word as I thought it might look like in the original without consulting a dictionary.

It doesn't necessarily have a pejorative connotation in Romanian - many of our young girls would have ended up in this condition through no fault of their own in the past. Alas, they still do!

They aren't the only ones.

Btw, neither kadin or odalik have a bad connotation at all in Turkish, as they don't imply any sexual use at all (the odalik was the servant of the concubines in the harem, not a member herself). Odalisque is just another Orientalist twist to what the Orient was actually doing.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Capitalism did its job thoroughly in Germany. It is now being run by (according to reports) by the second most powerful person in the world, Angelika Merkel, who grew up in communist East Germany. She seems to have found it an "enlightening" experience.

You have no idea how right you are for all the wrong reasons. I had a laugh cause I was sorta writing a reply while deciding when to freeze and you literally offered an example of one of my points.

Not sure if the draft was saved. I have a trouble with that feature around here for some reason.

Heck, in Romania I recall, around the year 2000 or so many a religious organizations and clergy were on the streets protesting the de-criminalization of homosexual sex in a quite hysterical tone. IIRC even the patriarchate issued some encouragement to that.

Hmm, like most Romanians, I don't think I was paying much attention to the subject back then, but somehow I have to doubt the accuracy of your recollections (again).

The things referenced above happened around that time when the infamous article 200 was about to be struck down from the Penal Code as a requirement to join the EU. It was on TV, the press. I don't presume to know the things you were paying attention back then. In the nineties there were cases of people imprisoned for having had sex with persons of the same sex. If you don't trust my recollections, you can always check.

So, to set the record straight (pun intended) - this is not why I said I mistrusted your recollections. What I was questioning was your assertion that the religious organizations (which ones? ASCOR, Isus Speranța României?) or the Patriarchate (Patriarch Teoctist?!) went out on the streets to ”hysterically” protest for LGBT rights (be it only the decriminalization of homosexuality).

In Arad "0astea Domnului" among others took to the streets with the cross and the church banners to protest that. I vividly remember that . It appeared in "Adevarul". And here:http://teoctist.info/Articol.asp?ID=193Now that was truly rich on so many levels because besides IPS Bartolomeu who was rumored to have had fathered a couple of children, on the side, all other hierarchs mentioned could have run into problems were the said article to have been enforced zealously . According to what made it to the press.

Now that was truly rich on so many levels because besides IPS Bartolomeu who was rumored to have had fathered a couple of children, on the side, all other hierarchs mentioned could have run into problems were the said article to have been enforced zealously . According to what made it to the press.

That article proves just the opposite of what you are arguing. It says that the Patriarch and the Synod asked the Parliament not to sanction the abrogation of article 200, which still prohibited pro-gay propaganda and public manifestations (homosexual acts had been decriminalized since 1996). Should Parliament do away with it, they would appeal to the President for a veto.

The Church, through the voice of His Beatitude Patriarch Teoctist, requires the legal prosecution of homosexual propaganda through public manifestations, the media and private organizations. The head of the Orthodox Romanian Church mentions that it is not desirable to punish those touched by 'sins against nature'. But if the Senate does away with article 200, the Church will ask President Constantinescu not to sanction the alterations to the Penal Code.

As for such petty gossip about the Hierarchs, it's below the dignity of any sort of Orthodox to lend an ear to it.

Yes the Church opposed the abrogation of article 200. That's what I am trying to say. I'm still not sure what you are talking about though.And in the '90's this article made at least 3 victims:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_200

Even though in 1996 the article was amended so as to only punish "public acts" or those that produce "scandal" whatever that is ( a move unanimously opposed by the Romanian Churches consulted in advance , even then) it still denied homosexuals the right to assembly or of representation.

Yes the Church opposed the abrogation of article 200. That's what I am trying to say. I'm still not sure what you are talking about though.

Were you arguing that the Church and religious organizations protested in favour (that's what I understood) or against the decriminalization of homosexual acts & pro-gay propaganda? Because it approved the former and disapproved the latter, without any 'hysterical' street protests. It continues to do so to this day.

Yes the Church opposed the abrogation of article 200. That's what I am trying to say. I'm still not sure what you are talking about though.

Were you arguing that the Church and religious organizations protested in favour or against the decriminalization of homosexual acts & pro-gay propaganda? Because it approved the former and disapproved the latter, without any 'hysterical' street protests. It continues to do so to this day.

There were street protests that fall/ winter. Now I don't feel like roaming all over the internet to prove you I'm right. Maybe I'll do it some time.

Were you arguing that the Church and religious organizations protested in favour or against the decriminalization of homosexual acts & pro-gay propaganda? Because it approved the former and disapproved the latter, without any 'hysterical' street protests. It continues to do so to this day.

Even more, in countries such as France Msgr. Iosif Pop talks as he wouldn't in Romania, I am sure. There they only oppose gay marriage, otherwise being all in favor of diversity, multiplicity,alterity all the pomo soup. they are even for domestic parttnerships etc:

I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.

If you're an Orthodox Christian, you have to agree that all of modern Judaism and Jews aren't God's chosen people and are not "Jews" or "Israel", those attributes belong to the Orthodox Church.

Also, even compared to Judaism of the time of Christ, yes, most of modern Judaism is fake and pretend.

You cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe the Jews are still God's chosen people and are still Jews.

I sincerely hope that modern Judaism (the ones which are liberalizing) dies a terrible, and quick death. Same thing for all of "progressive" and liberal "Christianity".

Is this dogmatic attitude part of the fundamentalist Protestant baggage you're trying so hard to discard? I sure hope so.

No, as a Protestant I believed that the Jews are Gods chosen people and will be saved along with Christians, and that it is our duty to help Israel take over so they could destroy the Dome of the Rock and rebuild the Temple and usher in the end of the world when we and they will be united under Christ.

I'm glad I don't believe that anymore, I shed that baggage years ago.

There is only one true Israel, one inheritor of the covenants, the Orthodox Church. We are Israel, both Gentile and Jew, those Jews who didn't follow Christ are now apostates and abandoned their covenant with God.

This is what the Orthodox Church does teach about itself, it IS Israel.

Peter, why bring an unrelated subject to derail a thread further which is about homosexuality and gay marriage?

Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!

Well, that's small beer.

Quote

I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.

Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities. Anyhow, I am quite optimistic attitudes will change and they do. With younger people being more accepting of difference.My larger point however is that even the Church changes its discourse, as it is obvious it has softened at least rhetorically over the last 20 years.

Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities. Anyhow, I am quite optimistic attitudes will change and they do. With younger people being more accepting of difference.

"And what does the one God﻿ desire? Godly offspring." (Mal 2, 15)

"Shun youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (2 Tim. 2, 22)

Can/should Church discourse do away with verses like these?

I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Well, perhaps not so much with the stranger, since many of them come from abroad...

I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some. As for my passions they are quite mainstream and don't particularly flee them.One day they'll flee me, ins'allah.

I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy.

I'm somehow at a loss when trying to associate people at pride parades with the widow, the orphan and the stranger/immigrant.

Of course many are filthy bourgeois. But that's because they are exploiters, not because they are gay. A great many other are homeless being kicked out from their homes. I see them everyday as I live in Boystown. Also know some.

Well, the best the Church (individual Christians) could do for them is to give them shelter and maybe try to reconcile them with their families, not bless a civil partnership or marry them off to some sugar daddy.

What makes you think it's a sugar daddy they are looking for? BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.

If they are homeless, they need to look for a home, right? If they turn to their LGBT brethren for material/emotional support, what might they give in exchange besides 'themselves'? If you add a bit of "youthful passion" to altruistic sympathy, there you have it.

BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.

A lot of people can deduce a lot of things from a mere gesture of kindness. If a person is tolerated/shown acceptance by some community despite living in sin (if that's what the 'domestic partnership' amounts to in the end), it doesn't mean that they actually encourage or support their lifestyle or that they are even happy (ok) with it. If the LGBT community is capable of unconditional compassion, so should the Christians be.

Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!

Well, that's small beer.

Quote

I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.

Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities.

IndeedBuilding the Canal of the Dead (Canalul Mortii)

« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 08:19:21 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If they are homeless, they need to look for a home, right? If they turn to their LGBT brethren for material/emotional support, what might they give in exchange besides 'themselves'? If you add a bit of "youthful passion" to altruistic sympathy, there you have it.

BTW the Greek churches around here-a couple of them at least- are quite ok with domestic partnerships. Now, were it not for the many "write the bishop" types around here I would be less vague.

A lot of people can deduce a lot of things from a mere gesture of kindness. If a person is tolerated/shown acceptance by some community despite living in sin (if that's what the 'domestic partnership' amounts to in the end), it doesn't mean that they actually encourage or support their lifestyle or that they are even happy (ok) with it. If the LGBT community is capable of unconditional compassion, so should the Christians be.

Here I am talking of things I have seen over the last 6 years or so; you create scenarios.

Thank God we joined the EU! Now we can order home-made "Orthodox" Calendars with hunky-horny "priests" and "seminarians"!

Well, that's small beer.

Quote

I don't even know why they are pretending to have a public debate and give the Church a say in it. To give it an appearance of democracy, probably. I wonder what a referendum would make of the 'pomo soup' in Orthodox/Eastern European countries.

Who knows? But I'm sure gays wouldn't be the only minority targeted. It's always easy to find scapegoats in minorities.

IndeedBuilding the Canal of the Dead (Canalul Mortii)

The bourgeoisie is probably the one and only minority worth scapegoating 'cause in their case it's true.